Valitor will now be forced (Icelandic) to pay 800,000 Icelandic krónur ($6,824) per day if the gateway to WikiLeaks donations is not reopened within 15 days, according to the group.

"This is a victory for free speech,” said Julian Assange, the site’s founder, in an online statement. “This is a victory against the rise of economic censorship to crack down against journalists and publishers. We thank the Icelandic people for showing that they will not be bullied by powerful Washington backed financial services companies like Visa. And we send out a warning to the other companies involved in this blockade: you're next."

Less than a week after the Icelandic district court’s ruling in July 2012, WikiLeaks opened up another means of donating via a French bank. By December 2012, a new group, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, also set up an online means to donate to Assange’s group.

On its website, WikiLeaks lists myriad other ways that people can donate, including sending direct bank transfers to various accounts in Iceland and Australia. The Wau Holland Foundation, a German group named after the founder of the Chaos Computer Club, has been WikiLeaks’ primary receiving entity in Germany, for example.

Promoted Comments

Interesting. In principle, I don't think payment processors should have to accept payments to every destination. But in practice, the payment market is an oligopoly that can easily shut down an organization through collusion. Because the payment processors are generally based in or do business in the US, the US government can pressure them to cut off organizations that the US government opposes, which is a scary amount of power for a government to have. So while it would be nice to have a healthier market where no one payment processor could have much effect in blocking the movement of money, and in such a market we could do with less regulation, in practice I think this ruling is important for preventing those in power from abusing their power to stifle free speech.

78 Reader Comments

Interesting. In principle, I don't think payment processors should have to accept payments to every destination. But in practice, the payment market is an oligopoly that can easily shut down an organization through collusion. Because the payment processors are generally based in or do business in the US, the US government can pressure them to cut off organizations that the US government opposes, which is a scary amount of power for a government to have. So while it would be nice to have a healthier market where no one payment processor could have much effect in blocking the movement of money, and in such a market we could do with less regulation, in practice I think this ruling is important for preventing those in power from abusing their power to stifle free speech.

Though I think WikiLeaks' actions are counterproductive toward its stated aims, I am very hesitant to let a payment processor with significant market power get away with picking and choosing the payments it wants to process. This type of abuse-of-market-power is precisely the kind of thing that invites strangling regulation.

VISA would have been smarter to be more subtle. For example, they could have found some obscure clause in the gargantuan merchant agreement that was violated by WikiLeaks, then terminated payment for cause.

Though I think WikiLeaks' actions are counterproductive toward its stated aims, I am very hesitant to let a payment processor with significant market power get away with picking and choosing the payments it wants to process. This type of abuse-of-market-power is precisely the kind of thing that invites strangling regulation.

VISA would have been smarter to be more subtle. For example, they could have found some obscure clause in the gargantuan merchant agreement that was violated by WikiLeaks, then terminated payment for cause.

The problem was, after analysis by some very intelligent people, there was no obscure clause that they could use because Wikileaks was acting PERFECTLY WITHIN THE LAW!

Some people might not like that fact, but the truth is that the First Amendment gives a lot of leeway even for releasing classified government documents, if there is a benefit to society from the destruction of secrecy.

The papers that Wikileaks releases definitely apply AND Wikileaks redacts, just like the government, all names and places before release unless they are so common or vague as to be meaningless in the real world.

Some people might not like that fact, but the truth is that the First Amendment gives a lot of leeway even for releasing classified government documents, if there is a benefit to society from the destruction of secrecy.

Actually, it goes further than this. The US has no notion of 'state secrets' (except for a few narrow nuclear power/weapons details) the way most other nations do, because the attendant laws are unconstitutional. Private citizens who don't hold a security clearance are not restricted from communicating classified information. Only people who've actually been briefed into a classified program, which they must explicitly accept and acknowledge, bear legal restrictions on what they can disclose.

While I agree with the ruling as a matter of principle, Assange always seemed a little douchie to me :-/.

More and more as I get older I realize that it's rarely a choice between the good guys and the bad guys, but instead between assholes of varying degrees. For all Wikileaks' faults, I think we're better off with them than without them.

And of course there's the general principle of whether financial companies and government should be able to exercise this much power on a whim.

Though I think WikiLeaks' actions are counterproductive toward its stated aims, I am very hesitant to let a payment processor with significant market power get away with picking and choosing the payments it wants to process. This type of abuse-of-market-power is precisely the kind of thing that invites strangling regulation.

VISA would have been smarter to be more subtle. For example, they could have found some obscure clause in the gargantuan merchant agreement that was violated by WikiLeaks, then terminated payment for cause.

The problem was, after analysis by some very intelligent people, there was no obscure clause that they could use because Wikileaks was acting PERFECTLY WITHIN THE LAW!

Some people might not like that fact, but the truth is that the First Amendment gives a lot of leeway even for releasing classified government documents, if there is a benefit to society from the destruction of secrecy.

The papers that Wikileaks releases definitely apply AND Wikileaks redacts, just like the government, all names and places before release unless they are so common or vague as to be meaningless in the real world.

I didn't say their underlying conduct was illegal; I said it was counterproductive vis-a-vis their stated aims (chance of blown secrets -> reluctance to engage in sensitive diplomacy -> fewer conflicts resolved peacefully -> more death from violence). However, boilerplate contracts like merchant agreements tend to have lots of weasel clauses in them. Try reading a commercial lease or similar document.

Julian Assange never signed a need-to-know agreement with the US government, so he was not bound by the US laws regarding classified information. PFC Manning will be crushed into a bullion cube, but that's a separate topic.

I'm shocked! There is on this planet still a government institution that actually believes economic strangulation is not a legitimate response when someone shines a light on government operations that prefer to remain in the dark.

If the U.S. government had been able legitimately to show one single instance when the price paid for WikiLeaks having released information was higher than embarrassment for misbehaving bureaucracies, they would have trumpeted it to the heavens as justification for their incredible harassment of WikiLeaks.

Fact is, the only really destructive, intentional security leak in recent memory occurred when Dick Cheney blew a very successful CIA network for the sake of petty political revenge. Didn't hear much right-wing outrage over that one. And Cheney still seems proud of lying the U.S. into another murderous war far away from home.

But let WikiLeaks embarrass a few incompetent generals or greedy, corrupt bureaucrats, and listen to all the yelling about terrorism. The cockroaches sure hate it when someone shines a light on them.

Some people might not like that fact, but the truth is that the First Amendment gives a lot of leeway even for releasing classified government documents, if there is a benefit to society from the destruction of secrecy.

Interesting. In principle, I don't think payment processors should have to accept payments to every destination. But in practice, the payment market is an oligopoly that can easily shut down an organization through collusion. Because the payment processors are generally based in or do business in the US, the US government can pressure them to cut off organizations that the US government opposes, which is a scary amount of power for a government to have. So while it would be nice to have a healthier market where no one payment processor could have much effect in blocking the movement of money, and in such a market we could do with less regulation, in practice I think this ruling is important for preventing those in power from abusing their power to stifle free speech.

That scary amount of power is a result of the people allowing that power to grow unchecked. It'll never stop growing until people have had enough and actually do something about it. By then it's probably too late.

Thank god for common sense. In the end, I don't understand what made them think they could arbitrarily and without cause decide to stop processing transactions for them.

Payment processors have no need to engage in this 'long arm of the law' nonsense -- there are plenty of regulations in place to deal with this sort of thing. If they convicted Wikileaks of some sort of crime, they can easily seize the accounts where the payments went. In the meantime, Wikileaks has been convicted of nothing and thus there are no grounds to interfere with their ability to receive donations.

Oh, and should anyone suggest that "they released US government" documents is a legitimate reason -- think again. Even when taking treaties into account -- we're talking about a foreign corporation acting on behalf of a government of a completely different foreign nation -- one who has not convicted WikiLeaks of anything.

Interesting. In principle, I don't think payment processors should have to accept payments to every destination. But in practice, the payment market is an oligopoly that can easily shut down an organization through collusion. Because the payment processors are generally based in or do business in the US, the US government can pressure them to cut off organizations that the US government opposes, which is a scary amount of power for a government to have. So while it would be nice to have a healthier market where no one payment processor could have much effect in blocking the movement of money, and in such a market we could do with less regulation, in practice I think this ruling is important for preventing those in power from abusing their power to stifle free speech.

VISA Europe is not based in the US. It is not owned by VISA, Inc either (they may still own a piece of VISA, Inc though. It is owned entirely by European banks). The companies split years ago when the US business was sold off through an IPO. Valitor, the processor in question is not owned by either of them. It was VISA Europe leading the charge against Wikileaks, however.

Assange is a world-class journalist whose innovations are very much needed in this world of fast-disappearing civil liberties. He should have already received a Nobel prize in journalism for "Collateral Murder". May his victories continue!

Because lying in order to go to war should be protected from the spotlight?

Nothing that Wikileaks has done has led to the loss of life - in contrast to the actions of those who oppose the organisation. If you have nothing to hide, then why be so afraid of a reporter that you illegally act to force private companies to try to strangle his work?

Assange is a world-class journalist whose innovations are very much needed in this world of fast-disappearing civil liberties. He should have already received a Nobel prize in journalism for "Collateral Murder". May his victories continue!

Because lying in order to go to war should be protected from the spotlight?

Nothing that Wikileaks has done has led to the loss of life - in contrast to the actions of those who oppose the organisation. If you have nothing to hide, then why be so afraid of a reporter that you illegally act to force private companies to try to strangle his work?

Perhaps you were unaware that the unredacted cables are out in the wild, and that they named informants, dissidents, etc.? Claiming that no loss of life resulted from this is a bit naive.

But again, as far as I know, no one at WikiLeaks broke any laws in publishing their material whether it was redacted or not. They just made it more difficult for diplomats to do their jobs.

Assange is a world-class journalist whose innovations are very much needed in this world of fast-disappearing civil liberties. He should have already received a Nobel prize in journalism for "Collateral Murder". May his victories continue!

Because lying in order to go to war should be protected from the spotlight?

Nothing that Wikileaks has done has led to the loss of life - in contrast to the actions of those who oppose the organisation. If you have nothing to hide, then why be so afraid of a reporter that you illegally act to force private companies to try to strangle his work?

Perhaps you were unaware that the unredacted cables are out in the wild, and that they named informants, dissidents, etc.? Claiming that no loss of life resulted from this is a bit naive.

But again, as far as I know, no one at WikiLeaks broke any laws in publishing their material whether it was redacted or not. They just made it more difficult for diplomats to do their jobs.

Some people might not like that fact, but the truth is that the First Amendment gives a lot of leeway even for releasing classified government documents, if there is a benefit to society from the destruction of secrecy.

I doubt the supreme court in Iceland referenced the US constitution.

I looked at the court opinion (Google translate does not do well with Icelandic, btw), and they did not, in fact, reference the US constitution.

In fact, they didn't reference free speech at all; the case was handled as a purely commercial case with the dispute being over whether Wikileaks breached particular parts of the contract thus justify Valitor in stopping service. The court upheld the lower court's opinion finding no breach of contract based on the terms of the contract between Wikileaks and Valitor.

Some people might not like that fact, but the truth is that the First Amendment gives a lot of leeway even for releasing classified government documents, if there is a benefit to society from the destruction of secrecy.

I doubt the supreme court in Iceland referenced the US constitution.

I looked at the court opinion (Google translate does not do well with Icelandic, btw), and they did not, in fact, reference the US constitution.

In fact, they didn't reference free speech at all; the case was handled as a purely commercial case with the dispute being over whether Wikileaks breached particular parts of the contract thus justify Valitor in stopping service. The court upheld the lower court's opinion finding no breach of contract based on the terms of the contract between Wikileaks and Valitor.

Why would they anyway?

I'm sure it will annoy those foreigners that like to try and use it against America but America's Constitution was written for the governance of Americans, and certainly not for its enemies.

Quote:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Edit: so many down ranks yet the language is so clear about who the Constitution is meant for. Your down ranks make no sense.

Interesting. In principle, I don't think payment processors should have to accept payments to every destination. But in practice, the payment market is an oligopoly that can easily shut down an organization through collusion. Because the payment processors are generally based in or do business in the US, the US government can pressure them to cut off organizations that the US government opposes, which is a scary amount of power for a government to have. So while it would be nice to have a healthier market where no one payment processor could have much effect in blocking the movement of money, and in such a market we could do with less regulation, in practice I think this ruling is important for preventing those in power from abusing their power to stifle free speech.

VISA Europe is not based in the US. It is not owned by VISA, Inc either (they may still own a piece of VISA, Inc though. It is owned entirely by European banks). The companies split years ago when the US business was sold off through an IPO. Valitor, the processor in question is not owned by either of them. It was VISA Europe leading the charge against Wikileaks, however.

Pretty much like frequent flyer points. Payment processing is half the story, the other half is the bank that issued the Visa Merchant account in the first place which is always local.

Interesting. In principle, I don't think payment processors should have to accept payments to every destination. But in practice, the payment market is an oligopoly that can easily shut down an organization through collusion. Because the payment processors are generally based in or do business in the US, the US government can pressure them to cut off organizations that the US government opposes, which is a scary amount of power for a government to have. So while it would be nice to have a healthier market where no one payment processor could have much effect in blocking the movement of money, and in such a market we could do with less regulation, in practice I think this ruling is important for preventing those in power from abusing their power to stifle free speech.

From the ruling, it sounds like the actual reason for the courts making the ruling that they did was that the contract was improperly closed, rather than for reasons of freedom of speech. So while people are cheering for freedom of speech, honestly, I fail to see how this ruling has anything to do with it. Though maybe its just because the translation is weird. It sounds more like a contractural dispute than anything else.

Those of you who are saying "Well, they should have to because there aren't many companies!" - no, they really, really, really shouldn't have to. The reason is that many criminal enterprises exist, and you need to give the companies the ability to keep away from, say, groups that fund Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, or organized crime. The comapanies need to have the right to choose who they do business with.

FrankM wrote:

VISA would have been smarter to be more subtle. For example, they could have found some obscure clause in the gargantuan merchant agreement that was violated by WikiLeaks, then terminated payment for cause.

Uh, that's exactly what they DID. VISA said that they were violating their service agreement; that was the basis on which they terminated the agreement. Not sure why people think it was otherwise.

Oh right, because people want to believe in Big Bad America.

MilleniX wrote:

Actually, it goes further than this. The US has no notion of 'state secrets' (except for a few narrow nuclear power/weapons details) the way most other nations do, because the attendant laws are unconstitutional. Private citizens who don't hold a security clearance are not restricted from communicating classified information. Only people who've actually been briefed into a classified program, which they must explicitly accept and acknowledge, bear legal restrictions on what they can disclose.

Yes... and no.

The catch, here, is that it is illegal to ask other people to give you classified documents. That's more commonly known as espionage, which is a VERY serious offense. If you solicit classified documents from someone who has access to classified documents, you are, in fact, committing a federal crime which carries a pretty heavy sentence with it.

If classified information is disclosed to you, you can freely disseminate it if you haven't signed anything to the contrary, but if you ASKED for it, then you committed a crime.

FrankM wrote:

Julian Assange never signed a need-to-know agreement with the US government, so he was not bound by the US laws regarding classified information. PFC Manning will be crushed into a bullion cube, but that's a separate topic.

The question is whether he asked for Manning to give him classified material. If he did, then he's guilty of espionage.

I agree with the ruling that if Visa wants to have the backing of legal tender, it have to complete any transaction regardless of its "principles." However, Assange is wrong that this is a victory for freedom on speech: this is about contract law. He sounds like a moron saying otherwise.

What kind of "journalists" target primarily one country, and especially the one country which, though not perfect, has arguably done more than any other to assure democracy and "free speech" for others?

If he is so much for "free speech" and against "censorship" then why is he so defensive and secretive when others try to probe into his life?

If he truly cares about "free speech" then he must care about freedom, period. So why isn't he and his supporters also targeting and attacking the biggest robbers of speech and freedom throughout the world like the many real "journalists" who have lost their lives doing so? .

Which would be in your opinion the country which 'done more than any other to assure democracy and "free speech" for others'? You cannot talk about the US, because it regularly helps opressive regimes and attacks countries at the other side of the world with no justifiable reasons.

Personal privacy and free speech are two distinct issues, and privacy is needed in part exactly to facilitate free speech. The sex life of someone is positively within the realm of personal privacy.

I also don't think WikiLeaks only targets the US. Sure, the greatest atrocities make the greatest outrage, and the US have managed to be involved in most of them.

This is a victory for free speech,” said Julian Assange, the site’s founder, in an online statement. “This is a victory against the rise of economic censorship to crack down against journalists and publishers"

What kind of "journalists" target primarily one country, and especially the one country which, though not perfect, has arguably done more than any other to assure democracy and "free speech" for others? SIC

What makes you say that he targets one country. You don't know what you are talking about?

Wikileaks tends to leak whatever comes to them and a lot of that stuff is from the US and NATO. If you go to wikileaks.org they have documents from Syria about the inner workings of Assads regime and documents about sex abuse by the hand of UN blue helmets.

We differ on how much of a pillar for free speech and democracy the US is.

While I agree with the ruling as a matter of principle, Assange always seemed a little douchie to me :-/.

I kind of agree - I can't quite bring myself to actually LIKE him, but I certainly respect him and what he does (a huge amount of respect actually). I'm Australian and I wish he was running for senate in my area: I would vote for him if I could.

I'm a little surprised by this ruling (you'd think a private company could refuse business to whoever it wanted), but very glad to see it's gone this way. Wikileaks is one tiny step in the right direction for the world.

This is a victory for free speech,” said Julian Assange, the site’s founder, in an online statement. “This is a victory against the rise of economic censorship to crack down against journalists and publishers"

What kind of "journalists" target primarily one country, and especially the one country which, though not perfect, has arguably done more than any other to assure democracy and "free speech" for others?

That's a very biased view. I guess you only take notice of Wikileaks when they publish something on the US, and ignore them the rest of the time.

Assange is a world-class journalist whose innovations are very much needed in this world of fast-disappearing civil liberties. He should have already received a Nobel prize in journalism for "Collateral Murder". May his victories continue!

Because lying in order to go to war should be protected from the spotlight?

Nothing that Wikileaks has done has led to the loss of life - in contrast to the actions of those who oppose the organisation. If you have nothing to hide, then why be so afraid of a reporter that you illegally act to force private companies to try to strangle his work?

Interesting. In principle, I don't think payment processors should have to accept payments to every destination. But in practice, the payment market is an oligopoly that can easily shut down an organization through collusion. Because the payment processors are generally based in or do business in the US, the US government can pressure them to cut off organizations that the US government opposes, which is a scary amount of power for a government to have. So while it would be nice to have a healthier market where no one payment processor could have much effect in blocking the movement of money, and in such a market we could do with less regulation, in practice I think this ruling is important for preventing those in power from abusing their power to stifle free speech.

I completely agree with you. While they are not obligated to accept payments for everyone, credit cards and add probably PayPal to it, pretty much rule the online marketplace. If credit cards processors decide to deny a company its services, they are pretty much out of the Internet.

This is bad of e commerce on the Internet. The whole payment systems is in the hand of companies you can count with 1 single hand.

This is why I believe in Bitcoins as payment system for the Internet. Just for this reason, because the there is more or less a monopoly when we deal about online transactions. So any new player is welcome, in particular one that nobody has control to shut down or press, not because you do anything illegal just because we are free individuals. And as free persons, doing business online should not be scrutinized to who decides you will or will not make it online. Sadly this is how it works today. If for some reasons you are kicked from the banking systems you are pretty much on your own.

This is the biggest missing thing on the Internet. A true neutral, decentralized, real time payment systems that can also be used for micro transactions or for anyone and everywhere. I think Bitcoins could make it. Its the most serious player to become the Internet currency. Hope so.

By the way, I do not think what Wikileads is completely fine either. Stealing information and posting it online without authorization should not be glorified. I do think free speech must be respected and I think this is a great move for a free world, in particular where people cannot blackmail or put political pressure to shut up some ideas they do not like. But I also think that Wikileads crosses the line sometimes. In particular because its not their information and some of them was incorrect to make public. Lets not forget the world is full of idiots, and some idiots should not access some information. Wikileads did posted information that was a risky to some national concerns in the US and even more information without authorization. But what the US government did is nothing more than mobbing, like the mafia does. They pressured private companies to stop accepting donations for them. Any government that starts to pressure private companies to their will is also crossing its line.

This is a victory for free speech,” said Julian Assange, the site’s founder, in an online statement. “This is a victory against the rise of economic censorship to crack down against journalists and publishers"

What kind of "journalists" target primarily one country, and especially the one country which, though not perfect, has arguably done more than any other to assure democracy and "free speech" for others? SIC

What makes you say that he targets one country. You don't know what you are talking about?

Wikileaks tends to leak whatever comes to them and a lot of that stuff is from the US and NATO. If you go to wikileaks.org they have documents from Syria about the inner workings of Assads regime and documents about sex abuse by the hand of UN blue helmets.

We differ on how much of a pillar for free speech and democracy the US is.

I did not say he "targets one country," I said he targets "**primarily** one country." Please read more carefully.

Wikileaks and its supporters have boasted about their information collection prowess. Well, if that's the case then why are they **primarily** targeting and attacking one country that is unlikely to harm him at this point in history while there are vastly more vile governments and organizations that grossly violate people's right to "free speech" and freedom in general often, and concluding with the end of people's lives?

Quote:

We differ on how much of a pillar for free speech and democracy the US is.

Right, because countries such as the former Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and current countries such as China, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Cuba were, or are, only just a bit worse, huh?

If it were not for America you wouldn't have your "free speech" and "democracy" that you obviously take for granted.

This is a victory for free speech,” said Julian Assange, the site’s founder, in an online statement. “This is a victory against the rise of economic censorship to crack down against journalists and publishers"

What kind of "journalists" target primarily one country, and especially the one country which, though not perfect, has arguably done more than any other to assure democracy and "free speech" for others?

That's a very biased view. I guess you only take notice of Wikileaks when they publish something on the US, and ignore them the rest of the time.

In no logical way can my comments be viewed as "biased." If I said that they target and attack only America and denounced any and all leaks regarding America then you would have a case for calling me biased. As I told another poster, please read more carefully what people write before responding.

The comments about Assange being secretive and defensive when people probe his personal life is well documented. Even many people that generally support Wikileaks have called him out for such hypocrisy.

This is a victory for free speech,” said Julian Assange, the site’s founder, in an online statement. “This is a victory against the rise of economic censorship to crack down against journalists and publishers"

What kind of "journalists" target primarily one country, and especially the one country which, though not perfect, has arguably done more than any other to assure democracy and "free speech" for others?

Well most journalists. I'd go even further and say most journalists target regions only. There are more local/regional news sources in the world than there are national ones and there are even less world wide ones.

And free speech is useless if a government is declaring everything a secret and divulging those secrets is punishable regardless of free speech laws.

What kind of "journalists" target primarily one country, and especially the one country which, though not perfect, has arguably done more than any other to assure democracy and "free speech" for others?

If he is so much for "free speech" and against "censorship" then why is he so defensive and secretive when others try to probe into his life?

If he truly cares about "free speech" then he must care about freedom, period. So why isn't he and his supporters also targeting and attacking the biggest robbers of speech and freedom throughout the world like the many real "journalists" who have lost their lives doing so? .

Which would be in your opinion the country which 'done more than any other to assure democracy and "free speech" for others'? You cannot talk about the US, because it regularly helps opressive regimes and attacks countries at the other side of the world with no justifiable reasons.

Of course it is America. Was attacking Nazi Germany during WWII OK for you? After all, it gave you the freedom you take for granted today. How about defending against the Soviet Union for around 50 years? How about Afghanistan, a base and refuge of terrorists. That wasn't justified? Most countries throughout the world would disagree with you, including those that were against America going into Iraq.

America playing the enemy of my enemy game during the Cold War, while not ideal, and entirely unjustified in some cases, does not cancel out its huge contribution to freedom and democracy throughout the world.

Quote:

Personal privacy and free speech are two distinct issues, and privacy is needed in part exactly to facilitate free speech. The sex life of someone is positively within the realm of personal privacy.

Not if there is a possibility of a crime that has been committed. Besides, he has been secretive and defensive beyond that.

A person that also calls himself a journalist should also know that a person that makes himself a public figure will be treated differently to a normal citizen in most countries.

Quote:

I also don't think WikiLeaks only targets the US. Sure, the greatest atrocities make the greatest outrage, and the US have managed to be involved in most of them.

Bloody hell, you are the third person that turned my comment of "primarily" targeting America into "only targets" America. I understand it's late but how can reading comprehension be that bad amongst so many of you?

As I told the other two critical posters, please read more carefully what other people write!

Your response is also just pure anti-Americanism as I can't believe that someone could be so ignorant to the things that happen everyday in plenty of countries around the world ruled by oppressive and tyrannical governments.

Bloody hell, you are the third person that turned my comment of "primarily" targeting America into "only targets" America. I understand it's late but how can reading comprehension be that bad amongst so many of you?

It's not even *primarily* the US. China and Kenya (and dozens of other countries whose documents were leaked) just didn't have the means that the US has to go after them, nor do stories from those countries make headlines in the US or European press.

This is a victory for free speech,” said Julian Assange, the site’s founder, in an online statement. “This is a victory against the rise of economic censorship to crack down against journalists and publishers"

What kind of "journalists" target primarily one country, and especially the one country which, though not perfect, has arguably done more than any other to assure democracy and "free speech" for others?

Well most journalists. I'd go even further and say most journalists target regions only. There are more local/regional news sources in the world than there are national ones and there are even less world wide ones.

You are trying to play semantics. The point of my remark is clear.

Quote:

And free speech is useless if a government is declaring everything a secret and divulging those secrets is punishable regardless of free speech laws.

Even China wouldn't declare "everything" about their government is a "secret" so saying America considers "everything a secret" is just plain silly.